Home > Cost Competitiveness in Manufacturing: a Study of KAMCO-
JIKRBMA
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Cost Management
Strategies for Enhanced Operational Efficiency: SOME EMPERICAL EVIDENCE
DR. MANOJ P K
ABSTRACT
:World over the significance of productivity and quality in industrial
production has reached its peak today, as a result of the ever-growing
competition in the wake of globalization pressures sweeping across the
world. There is a heightened need to improvise the cost effectiveness
of manufacturing processes, while at the same time maintaining quality,
in order to withstand the pressures of competition.
It has become imperative for businesses to constantly seek new and innovative
means to production processes and manufacturing techniques, and new
frontiers of technology for enhanced competitiveness of operations.
In the above context, this paper seeks to make an overall review
of the new manufacturing scenario in the developing world with special
reference to India, study the cost management system of a
PSU in Kerala (viz. KAMCO),and suggest suitable strategies for enhanced
cost competitiveness of the company.
Key Terms:
Manufacturing Competitiveness, Benchmarking, Production Function, Roi.
INTRODUCTION
World over the significance of productivity and quality in industrial production has reached its peak today, as a result of the ever-growing competition in industry and business, primarily because of the pressures of globalization. There is a heightened need to improvise the cost effectiveness of manufacturing processes, while at the same time maintaining quality, to withstand the pressures of competition. Accordingly, it has become imperative for businesses to constantly seek new and innovative means to production processes and manufacturing techniques, and new frontiers of technology for enhanced competitiveness of operations. In this context, this paper seeks to (i) make a macro level review of the manufacturing scenario in the developing world with special reference to India, (ii) make a micro level study of the cost management system of a public sector company (Government of Kerala), KAMCO (Kerala Agro-Machinery Corporation) including benchmarking it with the industry leader, and (iii) suggest suitable strategies for enhanced cost competitiveness of the company.
I. MANUFACTURING IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD IN THE ONGOING GLOBALIZED ERA
1.1. New Manufacturing Context and the Competitiveness Imperative
Growing interest in industrial competitiveness has now currently become a global phenomenon prominent across all economies–developed and developing, though it initially originated in the developed world. Wignaraja (2001)1 has observed, “Concerns about the process of industrial restructuring in an integrated world economy have sparked widespread interest in the concept of competitiveness as applied to national economies and enterprises within them. This interest originated in the developed world but has recently spilled over into developing countries and economies in transition”. The central issue of competitiveness of developing countries is “the creation of efficient industrial capacity”2. Accordingly, a new manufacturing context is fast emerging in the developing world wherein apart from knowledge and technological progress, five mutually reinforcing processes are vitally significant, viz. (i) revolutionary changes in ICT, (ii) emergence of globally integrated value chains, (iii) increasing global competition associated with falling trade barriers, (iv) new rules of the game (introduced through WTO and by foreign buyers of output), and (v) changing consumer demands.3
1.2. Stagnancy in Indian Manufacturing and Sectoral Imbalances
In India, enhancement
of manufacturing competitiveness has got added significance in the ongoing
LPG regime, particularly in the later years of globalization (viz. 2000s)
because of intensified competition. In fact, even before the LPG era
the existence of a ‘relative stagnation’ was conclusively demonstrated
by Ahluwalia (1985)4, between FY 1967 and FY 1980, and
that this ‘relative stagnation’ continued even after FY 1980. Nagaraj
(2006)5 who has continued this work in the
1980s and found that the growth rate during 1980-81 to1986-87 is higher
than that during 1966-67 to 1978-79; but comparable to the one during
1959-60 to1965-66 period. The already existing stagnation problem has
been continuing in the ongoing LPG era also, in spite of an upturn in
the eighties. The problem has in fact worsened owing to growing imbalance
between major sectors of the economy, characterized by fast growing
share of services sector, constantly declining share of agriculture
sector and stagnating industry sector (particularly the manufacturing
sub-sector within it). This has prompted the Government of India to
set up a specialized body, NMCC (ie. National Manufacturing Competitiveness
Council) to promote competitiveness of Indian manufacturing. As of FY
2008, the share of agriculture, industry and services are respectively
17.6%, 29.4% and 53%. As the imbalance between the three major sectors
grows, it is imminent to chalk out urgent policy measures to correct
the imbalance (Table I)
(Percentage)
Financial Year | Agriculture | Industry | Services | Total GDP |
FY 1950-51 | 59.60 | 14.50 | 25.90 | 100 |
FY 1960-61 | 55.10 | 17.30 | 27.60 | 100 |
FY 1970-71 | 48.50 | 20.70 | 30.80 | 100 |
FY 1980-81 | 41.50 | 21.60 | 36.90 | 100 |
FY 1989-90 | 33.90 | 27.00 | 39.10 | 100 |
FY 1991-92 | 26.70 | 31.30 | 42.00 | 100 |
FY 2004-05 | 20.80 | 26.00 | 53.20 | 100 |
FY 2005-06QE | 19.90 | 26.10 | 54.00 | 100 |
FY 2006-07RE | 18.50 | 26.40 | 55.10 | 100 |
FY 2007-08ES | 17.60 | 29.40 | 53.00 | 100 |
Table I: Sectors of the Economy and the Share of Overall GDP.
Source: (1) Economic Survey (various years till 2006-‘07) MOF, GOI.
[Note: QE: Quick Estimates, RE: Revised Estimates, ES: Early Estimates.]
1.3. Enhanced Competitiveness of Indian Manufacturing: an Imperative
From Table
I, it is noted that the share of industries sector to the national GDP
has been at about 27% for the last two decades or more. Of this, the
share of manufacturing sub-sector has been roughly about 17% throughout.
However, going by international standards, this share of manufacturing
sector may be observed to be quite low. (Table II). Iyer, A., Kandaswamy,
K., et. al6 have pointed out, “Without a doubt,
manufacturing is the backbone of the economy in most countries, especially
so in fast growing emerging markets. It is clear that for the Indian
manufacturing to successfully distribute wealth across its population,
manufacturing has to grow from its current 17% of GDP to a number closer
to 30% (which is the standard for most developed economies).”
Country | Agriculture | Industry | Manufacturing | Services |
Brazil | 5 | 31 | 18 | 64 |
Russia | 6 | 38 | 19 | 56 |
India | 18 | 28 | 16 | 54 |
China | 12 | 47 | 33 | 41 |
Table II: Composition of GDP in BRIC Countries (as of 2006)
[Source: World Development Indicators 2008, The World Bank, USA.,
2008, pp.202-204)
Indian manufacturing grew only at 6.3% during 1991 to 2003 as against 12% in China. NSM7 (2006) formulated by NMCC estimates that to attain the targeted GDP growth rate of 8 to 10 per cent, the country should target a minimum manufacturing growth rate of 12 per cent per annum. Besides, the share of manufacturing should be raised to 30 to 35% by 2020.
II. INDIAN MANUFACTURING AND COST COMPETITIVENESS
2.1. Challenges to Indian Manufacturing – the Issue of Cost Competitiveness
For Indian economy to exhibit a balanced, stable and sustainable growth it is highly imperative that Indian manufacturing, most importantly the segment comprising of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to grow phenomenally primarily through improving its competitiveness in terms of costs and quality. In the emerging scenario of global competition, the need for enhancement of productivity and competitiveness of manufacturing enterprises need not be overemphasized. Robust growth in manufacturing is an imperative for creation of better employment possibilities and overall economic development.8 Besides, competitiveness is central to robust growth of the manufacturing sector.9
One of the vital means of enhancing productivity and improving quality is through proper cost management. It is widely recognized that what Indian manufacturing needs the most today is improvement in cost competitiveness. Regarding cost competitiveness, Nakagawa (2008)10 has observed, “it refers to the edge that the domestic manufacturers need to have in providing quality products at a certain cost”. Many progressive organizations have adopted cost competitiveness as the central theme of business strategy. MUL (Maruti Udyog Ltd.) seeks to attain higher cost competitiveness through enhanced localization, higher productivity etc.11 It is worth noting here that, regarding the challenges faced by Indian manufacturing in the emerging scenario, NSM (2004)12 points out, inter alia, the following cardinal factors, (i) ensuring cost competitiveness and stimulating domestic demand, (ii) investing in innovations & technology, (iii) enabling SMEs to achieve competitiveness etc.
There are evidences for the declining competitiveness of Indian firms vis-à-vis their international counterparts in the LPG era. A study by The Economic Times (ET) in 2002 has revealed that the competitiveness of 202 Indian companies during FY 1997 to 2001 period has been constantly coming down, from 23.51 (FY 1997) to 20.92 (FY 2001). But, that of 42 MNCs (Multi-National Corporations) has gradually risen during the period, from 21.47 to 23.18. Gorden & Kato (2006)13 have observed that the profitability of domestic manufacturing firms has been adversely affected with the increase in import penetration during the reforms regime (FY 1992 to FY 2002 period) and that this negative effect has been lesser in respect of firms with larger size..
III. COST MANAGEMENT AT KAMCO: AN ANALYSIS
In this section, cost management system at KAMCO (a Govt. of Kerala unit) engaged in agro-machinery manufacturing is analyzed.
3.1. Major Financial Ratios of KAMCO: Cost Competitiveness is Vital
Tables III to VI respectively show the major cost ratios, inventory management ratios, and profitability ratios of KAMCO. It may be noted that all cost ratios are showing an increasing trend which is not advisable. The only exception is Selling & Distribution (S&D) expenses to Sales ratio, which is very much under control and is gradually coming down also. But this cost element is relatively small and hence less significant compared to others (Table III & Figure I).
Financial Year | Staff Costs
to Sales |
Materials Consumed
to Sales Ratio |
S&D Expenses
to Sales Ratio |
Conversion Cost Ratio | Total Costs to Total Income |
FY 2002 | 12.28 | 63.52 | 7.59 | 14.63 | 87.25 |
FY 2003 | 11.41 | 57.61 | 6.75 | 18.71 | 86.14 |
FY 2004 | 14.25 | 59.85 | 7.47 | 22.99 | 89.40 |
FY 2005 | 16.03 | 63.84 | 1.26 | 23.17 | 90.83 |
FY 2006 | 16.87 | 69.48 | 1.44 | 20.88 | 90.62 |
FY 2007 | 15.84 | 62.43 | 1.30 | 19.66 | 90.17 |
Table III: Major Cost Ratios of KAMCO.
[Source: Computed from Annual Reports
of KAMCO, FY 2002 to 2007.]
Financial Year | Inv. T/O | R-Mtl. Inv. T/O | WIP Inv. T/O | FG Inv T/O |
FY 2002 | 5.19 | 6.36 | 15.56 | 13.35 |
FY 2003 | 5.13 | 6.94 | 16.37 | 09.37 |
FY 2004 | 4.21 | 6.25 | 13.70 | 07.56 |
FY 2005 | 4.43 | 6.43 | 16.51 | 08.64 |
FY 2006 | 4.01 | 6.56 | 18.33 | 08.00 |
FY 2007 | 4.39 | 6.18 | 17.40 | 08.74 |
Table IV: Major Inventory Turnover Ratios of KAMCO.
[Source: Computed from Annual Reports of KAMCO, FY 2002 to 2007.]
Trend of Major Cost Ratios
Staff Costs to
Sales
Materials
Consumed to
Sales Ratio
S&D Expenses
to Sales Ratio
Conversion Cost
Ratio
Total Costs to
Total Income
y = 0.842x + 86.121
y = 0.9757x + 59.373
y = 0.9097x + 16.823
y = 1.0274x + 10.851
y = -1.5311x + 9.6607
0
20
40
60
80
100
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Figure I : Trend of Major Cost Ratios of KAMCO.
Trend of Major Inventory Ratios
Inventory T/O Ratio
Raw Material
Inventory T/O Ratio
WIP Inventory T/O
Ratio
FG Inventory T/O
Ratio
y = 0.5111x + 14.523
y = -0.7451x + 11.885
y = -0.0531x + 6.6393
y = -0.204x + 5.274
0
4
8
12
16
20
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Figure II : Trend of Inventory Turnover Ratios of KAMCO.
In the case of inventory ratios, all ratios are moving downward, which is not advisable, the only exception being WIP inventory turnover ratios. In fact, an increasing trend shows effective inventory management and vice versa. Thus, like cost ratios, inventory turnover ratios also show an unfavorable trend (Table IV& Figure II).
(In Percentages)
Financial Year | Net Profit Ratio | Oper. Profit Ratio | EPS | ROI | Op. Profit to Cost |
FY 2002 | 9.96 | 12.94 | 4.16 | 14.74 | 14.60 |
FY 2003 | 9.33 | 13.75 | 4.24 | 13.31 | 16.08 |
FY 2004 | 7.51 | 10.68 | 3.17 | 9.14 | 11.84 |
FY 2005 | 5.89 | 9.15 | 2.90 | 7.78 | 10.08 |
FY 2006 | 6.53 | 10.06 | 3.24 | 8.06 | 10.35 |
FY 2007 | 6.03 | 9.69 | 3.55 | 8.18 | 10.90 |
Table V: Major Profitability Ratios of KAMCO.
[Source:
Computed from Annual Reports
of KAMCO, FY 2002 to 2007.]
Figure III : Trend of Major Profitability Ratios of KAMCO.
All profitability ratios show a clearly declining trend (Table V, Figure III), thus suggesting that KAMCO has to improve its profitability. Thus, profitability ratios also show an adverse trend; similar to costs and inventory ratios as already discussed.
IV. KAMCO IN THE INDUSTRY: A BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS
Agricultural machinery and equipment have revolutionized the agricultural industry worldwide. In India, there has been reasonable growth in the sales turnover of the agro-machinery manufacturing companies. Though there are more than 50 companies, except for the largest 4 to 5 companies others have very small market shares (Table VI). KAMCO is benchmarked with VST – the competitor firm and also the market leader at present.
Name of the company | FY 02 | FY 03 | FY 04 | FY 05 | FY 06 | FY 07 | Average |
VST Tillers Tractors Ltd. | 09.45 | 10.70 | 15.37 | 13.48 | 13.81 | 16.02 | 13.14 |
Tractors
& Farm Equipments
Ltd. (TAFE) |
04.27 | 04.42 | 06.71 | 12.52 | 16.00 | 13.76 | 09.61 |
KAMCO | 14.15 | 14.85 | 13.31 | 13.63 | 12.20 | 11.28 | 13.24 |
Aspee Agro Machinery Corp. | 02.64 | NA | 03.35 | 04.01 | 03.66 | 03.39 | 02.84 |
Navayug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd. | 02.23 | 01.85 | 01.81 | 02.86 | 03.53 | 03.27 | 02.59 |
Table VI: Market Shares of the Largest Agro-Machinery Manufacturing Companies
[Source: Compiled from CMIE Database, Industry: Market Size & Shares, “Agricultural
Machinery”, April 2008, pp. 278-279.]
Figure IV: Market Shares of KAMCO Vs. VST (FY 2002–2007)
It
is noted that the market share of KAMCO was the highest till FY 2003
and it was the leader. But since FY 2004 VST is leading in performance.
While the market share of KAMCO is constantly on the decline since FY
2005, that of VST is on the rise. (Table VI, Figure IV).
Company | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | Average |
VST | -1.66 | 12.88 | 17.14 | 14.70 | 16.61 | 23.99 | 13.94 |
KAMCO | 14.74 | 13.31 | 9.14 | 7.78 | 8.06 | 8.18 | 10.20 |
[Source: Computed from the database of the companies available in CMIE Prowess, CMIE.]
Table VII: ROI of KAMCO Vs. VST (FY 2001
– 2007)
Figure V:
ROI of KAMCO Vs. VST (FY 2002 – 2007)
Growth Rate (%) | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | Average |
KAMCO | -0.94 | 08.87 | -07.19 | 16.42 | 0.88 | 13.97 | 05.34 |
VST | -26.86 | 17.37 | 46.51 | -0.57 | 14.46 | 25.38 | 12.72 |
[Source: Computed from Annual Reports of KAMCO (FY 2001–2007), CMIE Database]
Table VIII: Sales Growth of KAMCO Vs. VST (FY 2001
– 2007)
Figure VI: Sales Growth of KAMCO Vs. VST (FY 2001
– 2007)
As in the case of market share, in respect of Return on Investment (ROI) also there is a declining trend for KAMCO and an improving trend for VST. (Table VII, Figure V). Similarly, in the case of sales growth also VST is ahead of KAMCO. Besides, VST is growing much faster than KAMCO over the years. (Table VIII, Figure VI).
V. Significance of Costs: an Econometric Analysis
(C-D Production Function)
In this section, an attempt is made to identify the factors that significantly influence the productivity of KAMCO using Cobb-Douglas (CD) Production Function. The term ‘Production Function’ denotes an empirical relationship between specified outputs and inputs, and such a function can be derived for a single firm, an industry or even an entire nation (economy). The simplest form of CD Production Function is:
Q = La * Kb
Here, Q, L and K respectively stand for output, labour and capital. Here, a and b (exponents) have to be estimated from empirical data. For a typical manufacturing company like KAMCO, the production function at any point of time t for an output Q may be expressed as follows:
Q = Ft [ (Kt(t), Lt(t), Mt(t) ]
where, K(t) is the capital employed for which net worth of the company is used as a proxy, L(t) is the labour for which the Staff costs (Employee costs) has been taken as the proxy, and M(t) is the material costs. The relevant data applicable to KAMCO are given in Table IX.
(Rs lakhs)
Financial Year | Sales | Capital | Labour | Material |
FY 2001 | 6809.00 | 3931.49 | 794.00 | 4197.00 |
FY 2002 | 6745.00 | 4554.92 | 828.00 | 4285.00 |
FY 2003 | 7343.00 | 5144.19 | 838.00 | 4204.00 |
FY 2004 | 6815.00 | 5601.67 | 971.00 | 4079.00 |
FY 2005 | 7934.00 | 6014.14 | 1272.00 | 5065.00 |
FY 2006 | 8004.00 | 6481.46 | 1350.00 | 5561.00 |
FY 2007 | 9122.00 | 6997.67 | 1445.00 | 5695.00 |
(Source: Annual Reports of KAMCO for the period FY 2001 to FY 2007).
Table IX: Major Input–Output Variables of KAMCO (FY 2001 – 2007)
Now, after running Uni-variate Regression analysis using SPSS package (Version 13) with sales as the dependent variable and capital, labour and material as the independent variables, the output obtained is as follows (Tables X and XI).
Table X: Regression Output of KAMCO: Correlations
Particulars | Sales | Capital | Labour | Material |
Sales | 1 | |||
Capital | 0.870 | 1 | ||
Labour | 0.905 | 0.938 | 1 | |
Material | 0.918 | 0.846 | 0.955 | 1 |
Particulars | Co-efficients | t–Values | Sig. | R | R2 | Adj. R2 | D-W# Co-efficient |
Capital | 0.328 | 0.980 | 0.382 | 0.918 | 0.842 | 0.811 | 2.526 |
Labour | 0.325 | 0.503 | 0.642 | ||||
Material | 1.153 | 5.169* | 0.004* |
(* denotes significance at 5% level of significance.) (# Durbin-Watson Co-efficient)
Table XI: Regression Output of KAMCO: Key Parameters
It is observed that material component alone is statistically significant in determining the profitability in respect of KAMCO. Further, it is noted that the share of labour is pretty low, which in turn suggests that competitive market assumption may not be true in this case. (In advanced countries where markets are close to perfect competition, the share of labour is nearly two-thirds). In view of the foregoing, the following two broad findings are apparent:
VI. COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH COST MANAGEMENT: SOME STRATEGIES FOR KAMCO
In view of (i) falling market share (Table VI & Figure IV), (ii) falling profitability (Table V & Figure III), and also (iii) relatively slow sales growth (Table VIII & Figure VI) the strategies that KAMCO may adopt for enhancing its competitiveness in the industry and hence enabling its sustained growth, could be two broad grand strategies viz. (i) Strategies for enhanced cost competitiveness, and (ii) Diversification strategies for enhancing market share and sales revenue. Of these, strategies for cost competitiveness alone are taken up here in detail, from the point of view of the objectives of the paper.
Cost management strategies for enhanced competitiveness of KAMCO can be of two broad types viz. (i) short-term strategies, and (ii) long-term strategies.
6.1. Short-Term Strategies
Short-term strategies may be implemented without major changes in the present systems and procedures. Some of such meaningful strategies are given in Table XII. It may be noted that these cost saving strategies (Table XII) alone can bring about cost savings of 3.114% which is quite reasonable. These strategies should gradually, give way to the broader long-term strategies, wherever applicable (eg. Annual order should give way to JIT). Such long-term strategies that KAMCO may adopt are dealt in the next section (6.2) of this paper.
Cost Element | Basis of Control / Per Unit cost savings | Savings (% of total costs) |
Electricity charges | Avoiding off-peak hour consumption by suitable re-arrangement of Shifts. At present, two shifts (7 AM to 3 PM & 7 PM to 11 PM) are there. The second shift is sought to be re-arranged as 11 AM to 07 PM to avoid peak time consumption (6 PM to 10 PM) to obtain cost savings, Rs.2 lakhs /month (average) | Rs.2,00,000-00
(for 12 Months) = Rs.24,00,000-00 / year |
Inventory costs | (i) Self-Inspection:
Ordering full-boxes and
ensuring the total no. of boxes, Rs. 20,000-00 / p.m.(Av. salary and inspecting Official) (ii) Giving the empty containers back. One container costs Rs.550-00. There are 300 suppliers and 20 times. Only 150 suppliers are providing this facility. [150 X 20 X 550=Rs.16,50,000-00 / month] |
(Rs.20,000-00 + Rs.16,50,000) for 12 Months = Rs. 2,00,40,000-00 |
Postal Charges | Speed Post /
Registered Post deliveries are replaced with regular Courier service
agents.
Rs. 50-00 (average) is reduced to Rs.10-00. Rs.40 savings for 100 consignments of 303 days. (Rs.40 X 100 X 303)= 1212000-00/year |
= Rs.12,12,000-00 |
Purchase
Orders
(Annual) |
Reducing ordering
costs by Annual orders. Totally 300 suppliers and 4 orders per month.
Per order 15 minutes out of 7.5 hours for a worker with Rs.500 salary
/month. Thus,
(500/7.5) X 0.25 X 4 X 300=Rs.20,000/month |
Rs.20,000-00 for 11 months = Rs.2,20,000-00 |
Bank Charges | Direct transfer
to the accounts of clients 100 transactions / day on an average. Concessional
charges (50%) for banking services. Rs.30 per DD and bank charges Rs.4,29,538
(P&L).
[(100 X Rs.30 X 303) + Rs.429538-00] / year |
(Rs.9,09,000-00 + Rs.4,29,538) = Rs. 13,38,538-00 |
Early payment Discount | 03% discount
for early payment. 10 suppliers alone are giving this discount. Thus
per year,
(56,94,85,194-00/30)X 0.03= Rs.5,69,485-00 |
= Rs. 5,69,485-00 |
Contract Labour | Wherever possible new recruitments are made on temporary basis for consolidated pay. On an average 30 such persons/year at Rs.5000/ month, as against Rs.20,000/month for regular hands. 30 X Rs.15,000=Rs.4,50,000-00 / year | = Rs. 4,50,000-00 |
Total Cost Savings (Rs) per year. (A) | Rs. 2,62,30,023-00 | |
Total Costs for the year (B) | Rs. 84,24,15,768-00 | |
Cost Savings as a percentage of Total cost (A / B) X 100 | 03.114 % |
Table XII: Cost Savings under Various Elements of Cots of KAMCO (FY 2007 Basis).
[Source: Computed by the Author from the Cost/Financial statements and records of KAMCO]
6.2. Long-Term (Broad) Strategies
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
Concluding the paper, it may be stated that because of the cut-throat competition in the industry in the wake globalization pressures, and also the recessionary situation that is persisting in the economy since FY 2006, meticulously planned and well articulated cost management strategies have become an imperative for survival and growth for any manufacturing company. For a PSU (Govt. of Kerala) like KAMCO in particular, competition from private players like VST and TAFE will increasingly pose threat in the days to come. But, in spite of having all its handicaps of being a PSU, KAMCO has got all the requisite potentialities to come up and excel. This is evident from the formidable resilience of the company over the years, profit making track record and reasonable sales growth. KAMCO has got an excellent cost management department that facilitates prudent business decisions on the above lines – probably one that is helping this profit-making PSU to tide over the hard times without much of problems.
REFERENCES:
Wignaraja, Ganeshan., Competitiveness Strategy in Developing Countries: A Manual for Policy Analysis, Routledge, London, First Ed., 2001. p. 6.
2 Ibid., p.7.
Based on UK DTI (1998) and UNIDO (2002), cited in FN (1) above. pp.4-5.
Ahluwalia, I. J.(1985), Industrial Growth in India: Stagnation Since the Mid-Sixties, Oxford University Press.
N Nagaraj, R., “Growth in Manufacturing Output since 1980: Some Preliminary Findings”, Aspects of India’s Economic Growth and Reforms, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2006. pp. 113-124.
Iyer, A, Kandaswami, K., et al., “Manufacturing’s New Dawn: Can India Overcome the Challenges to become a Global Powerhouse?”, Indian Management, All India Management Association, New Delhi, Vol.46, Issue 7, July 2007, pp.14-36.
NSM (National Manufacturing Strategy), NMCC, Govt. of India, March 2006. p.11.
NSM (National Strategy for Manufacturing), NMCC, Govt. of India, p.2.
Ibid. p.4
Nakagawa, Hiroshi., Managing Director, Toyota Kirloskar Motor – the joint venture between the Japanese car maker Toyota and the Indian company Kirloskar Motors, “India needs to improve cost competitiveness”, The Hindu Business Line, Kochi Ed. dated 20th July 2008.
“Competitiveness through Localization, MUL’s Way”, The Hindu, Kochi Ed., dt. 27th April 2008.
NSM (National Strategy for Manufacturing), NMCC, Govt. of India, p.17.
Goden, Bishwanath & Kato, Atsushi., Import Penetration and Price-Cost Margins in Indian manufacturing Industries, Working Paper : E/271/2006, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.
15 Mahadevan, B, “Are Indian Companies Ready for Just-In-Time”?, Management Review, July–
Sept.1997, pp.85-92.
16 Ibid.
17 Chandra, S., “Justification of Just-in-time manufacturing systems for Indian industries”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9, No.5, 1998, pp. 314-324. (Available at www.emeraldinsight.com).
18 Mahadevab, B., 1997. (As given in 15 above).
All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download
Copyright © 2011